All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since August 22, 2014, the Defendant was unable to pay retirement allowances due to inevitable circumstances related to H No. 8 H No. 1 of the daily list of crimes committed in which he/she retired on November 16, 2014, because he/she was unable to participate in the management and operation of the unemployed.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found this part of the facts charged guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

B. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, although it was not acknowledged that the defendant did not pay retirement allowances to the defendant, claiming that the prosecutor 1 was erroneous (the acquittal portion of the judgment below).

2) In light of the amount of the unpaid retirement benefits, etc., which were found guilty as above, the sentence (200,000 won) that the court below rendered by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, namely, that the emergency response committee received most of the management expenses and paid monthly wages to employees complying with the direction, and the employees who did not do so are deemed to have retired from his/her office, but at the time, H retired from his/her office before the emergency response committee formed a M occupant cooperative and directly operated the M occupant cooperative, and there is extenuating circumstance that H would not pay retirement allowances to the Defendant.

In full view of the facts that it is difficult to recognize, the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below can be fully recognized.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. Judgment 1 on the Prosecutor’s assertion 1) The following circumstances, namely, the Defendant’s right to operate an emergency response committee and a cyber network, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court.